My system is very dated Ive been using it since the sale of my old socket 1366.

My question what should i buy AMD or Intel. Am not looking to spend much more than £300-£350. All i really need to buy with that is a new cpu, motherboard and Ram. I am onlu budgeting that since i plan on buying a second 5870 and an ssd.

Fx4100 is $109 USD how much is i5? The i5 is also not unlockable How much is he looking to spend?

Click to expand...

To me, it would make more sense to spend a little bit more money on something with better performance than to get something cheap and then bitch about how slow it is. (which is what a lot of non computer savvy people tend to do even after presented with the options)

To me, it would make more sense to spend a little bit more money on something with better performance than to get something cheap and then bitch about how slow it is. (which is what a lot of non computer savvy people tend to do even after presented with the options)

Click to expand...

I agree here, Also it will OC to a certain extent. You can manually boost by the turbo multi and get alittle over 4Ghz with these CPUs

You can manually boost by the turbo multi and get alittle over 4Ghz with these CPUs

Click to expand...

from what I have read, 3.8ghz for all for cores and TB up tp 4.1 for single core. I can raise the multi to 38x within BIOS or with AsRocks AXTU in Windows.

@ Bagpipes, the i5 2400 goes for around $200 US or CAN dollars and a quick conversion of his 300-350 pound limit is 555 USD. Therefore he has more than enough to get a i5 2400 OR a 2500K with a decent Mobo.

eh well if you can overclock you can usually overclock an FX-4100 to the speed of a stock i5-2500k. It won't ever be that much faster, but you're saving $100 and you're purchasing ethically if that matters to you at all.

why are people trying to suggest an inferior chip? Who cares if you can o/c a 4100? you can o/c a 2500K to OVER 4.5ghz and the performance comparison of both at 4 ghz or over isnt even comparable. Why would he want to save money and have a crappier PC? he laid out a budget for us and we have given good advice on what to get.

why are people trying to suggest an inferior chip? Who cares if you can o/c a 4100? you can o/c a 2500K to OVER 4.5ghz and the performance comparison of both at 4 ghz or over isnt even comparable. Why would he want to save money and have a crappier PC? he laid out a budget for us and we have given good advice on what to get.

Well, some of those denab and thubians are clocked the same or higher. Yes they have higher IPC, but the FX chip is cheaper at $110.

Also, I said if he wanted to do so on an ethical choice;

Environmental record
In 2003, there were 1.4 tons of carbon tetrachloride measured from one of Intel's many acid scrubbers. However, Intel reported no release of carbon tetrachloride for all of 2003.[139] Intel's facility in Rio Rancho, New Mexico overlooks a nearby village, and the hilly contours of its location create a setting for chemical gases heavier than air to move along arroyos and irrigation ditches in that village. Release of chemicals in such an environment reportedly caused adverse effects in both animals and humans. Deceased dogs in the area were found to have high levels of toluene, hexane, ethylbenzene, and xylene isomers in lungs.[140] More than 1,580 pounds (720 kg) of VOC were released in June and July 2006, the company stated.[141] Intel’s environmental performance is published annually in their corporate responsibility report.[142]

Religious controversy
Orthodox Jews have protested against Intel operating in Israel on Saturday, Shabbat. Intel ringed its office with barbed wire before the protest, but there was no violence.[143] As of December 2009, the situation has been stable for Intel Israel while some employees reported working overtime on Shabbat.

Age discrimination
Intel has faced complaints of age discrimination in firing and layoffs. Intel was sued by nine former employees, over allegations that they were laid off because they were over the age of 40.[144]
A group called FACE Intel (Former and Current Employees of Intel) claims that Intel weeds out older employees. FACE Intel claims that more than 90 percent of people who have been terminated by Intel are over the age of 40. Upside magazine requested data from Intel breaking out its hiring and terminations by age, but the company declined to provide any.[145] Intel has denied that age plays any role in Intel's employment practices.[146] FACE Intel was founded by Ken Hamidi, who was terminated by Intel in 1995 at the age of 47.[145] Hamidi was blocked in a 1999 court decision from using Intel's email system to distribute criticism of the company to employees.[147]

Lawsuits
Intel has often been accused by competitors of using legal claims to thwart competition. Intel claims that it is defending its intellectual property. Intel has been plaintiff and defendant in numerous legal actions.
In September 2005, Intel filed a response to an AMD lawsuit,[150] disputing AMD's claims, and claiming that Intel's business practices are fair and lawful. In a rebuttal, Intel deconstructed AMD's offensive strategy and argued that AMD struggled largely as a result of its own bad business decisions, including underinvestment in essential manufacturing capacity and excessive reliance on contracting out chip foundries.[151] Legal analysts predicted the lawsuit would drag on for a number of years, since Intel's initial response indicated its unwillingness to settle with AMD.[152][153] In 2008 a court date was finally set,[154] but in 2009 Intel settled with a $1.25 billion payout to AMD (see below).[155]
In October 2006, a Transmeta lawsuit was filed against Intel for patent infringement on computer architecture and power efficiency technologies.[156] The lawsuit was settled in October 2007, with Intel agreeing to pay US$150 million initially and US$20 million per year for the next five years. Both companies agreed to drop lawsuits against each other, while Intel was granted a perpetual non-exclusive license to use current and future patented Transmeta technologies in its chips for 10 years.[157]
On November 4, 2009, New York's attorney general filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel Corp, claiming the company used "illegal threats and collusion" to dominate the market for computer microprocessors.
On November 12, 2009, AMD agreed to drop the antitrust lawsuit against Intel in exchange for $1.25 billion.[155] A joint press release published by the two chip makers stated "While the relationship between the two companies has been difficult in the past, this agreement ends the legal disputes and enables the companies to focus all of our efforts on product innovation and development."[158][159]

Anti-competitive allegations

See also: AMD v. Intel

Japan
In 2005, the local Fair Trade Commission found that Intel violated the Japanese Antimonopoly Act. The commission ordered Intel to eliminate discounts that had discriminated against AMD. To avoid a trial, Intel agreed to comply with the order.[160][161][162][163]

European Union
In July 2007, the European Commission accused Intel of anti-competitive practices, mostly against AMD.[164] The allegations, going back to 2003, include giving preferential prices to computer makers buying most or all of their chips from Intel, paying computer makers to delay or cancel the launch of products using AMD chips, and providing chips at below standard cost to governments and educational institutions.[165] Intel responded that the allegations were unfounded and instead qualified its market behavior as consumer-friendly.[165] General counsel Bruce Sewell responded that the Commission had misunderstood some factual assumptions as to pricing and manufacturing costs.[166]
In February 2008, Intel stated that its office in Munich had been raided by European Union regulators. Intel reported that it was cooperating with investigators.[167] Intel faced a fine of up to 10% of its annual revenue, if found guilty of stifling competition.[168] AMD subsequently launched a website promoting these allegations.[169][170] In June 2008, the EU filed new charges against Intel.[171] In May 2009, the EU found that Intel had engaged in anti-competitive practices and subsequently fined Intel €1.06 billion (US$1.44 billion), a record amount. Intel was found to have paid companies, including Acer, Dell, HP, Lenovo and NEC,[172] to exclusively use Intel chips in their products, and therefore harmed other companies including AMD.[172][173][174] The European Commission said that Intel had deliberately acted to keep competitors out of the computer chip market and in doing so had made a "serious and sustained violation of the EU's antitrust rules".[172] In addition to the fine, Intel was ordered by the Commission to immediately cease all illegal practices.[172] Intel has stated that they will appeal against the Commission's verdict.[172]

South Korea
In September 2007, South Korean regulators accused Intel of breaking antitrust law. The investigation began in February 2006, when officials raided Intel's South Korean offices. The company risked a penalty of up to 3% of its annual sales, if found guilty.[175] In June 2008, the Fair Trade Commission ordered Intel to pay a fine of US$25.5 million for taking advantage of its dominant position to offer incentives to major Korean PC manufacturers on the condition of not buying products from AMD.[176]

United States
New York started an investigation of Intel in January 2008 on whether the company violated antitrust laws in pricing and sales of its microprocessors.[177] In June 2008, the Federal Trade Commission also began an antitrust investigation of the case.[178] In December 2009 the FTC announced it would initiate an administrative proceeding against Intel in September 2010.[179][180][181][182]
In November 2009, following a two year investigation, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Intel, accusing them of bribery and coercion, claiming that Intel bribed computer makers to buy more of their chips than those of their rivals, and threatened to withdraw these payments if the computer makers were perceived as working too closely with its competitors. Intel has denied these claims.[183]
On July 22, 2010, Dell agreed to a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to pay $100M in penalties resulting from charges that Dell did not accurately disclose accounting information to investors. In particular, the SEC charged that from 2002 to 2006, Dell had an agreement with Intel to receive rebates in exchange for not using chips manufactured by AMD. These substantial rebates were not disclosed to investors, but were used to help meet investor expectations regarding the company's financial performance; the SEC said that in the first quarter of 2007 they amounted to 70% of Dell's operating income. Dell eventually did adopt AMD as a secondary supplier in 2006, and Intel subsequently stopped their rebates, causing Dell's financial performance to fall.[184][185][186]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel